Poll: What concerns you most about Adobe's move to subscriptions?

Adobe's decision to move to a subscription-based model for its professional creative software has prompted probably the most impassioned response we've ever seen to a news story on dpreview.com. There's a risk that the sheer volume of comments might prevent a clear message being heard, so we've prepared a poll of the most common complaints, to help establish what your biggest concerns are.

While there's every chance you are uncomfortable with a number of aspects of Adobe's decision, we want to know what's most pressing. So please vote for the factor that is of greatest concern to you and we'll communicate the results to Adobe.

Have your say

What concerns you most about Adobe's move to subscription-based software?

Comments

Actually, I seldom use Photoshop , except some photo need to did some post-production like liquifying… or some action which DPP cannot do… for me , I did use PS 1-2 time per month (in short time...)..... It does not worth me to pay the CS Cloud version monthly...... maybe i keep using DPP, also my old CS4 is doing nice job for me already.....

Although a raw photo are not as good as a photo which had been PSed… I like the original photo more ....... Cloud version is good for the person which always bought new version of CS , but for me..... it's just a tools like a camera body......

I will still keep in use my CS4 , if anythings effect my CS4 made me cannot use it , i prefer to give-up CS and choose other photo editing programme....

And what will you do when the OS of the new computer you had to get doesn't support CS4 anymore ? You could keep your old computer for a while, just to access to CS4, so you may prolonge the delay, but sooner or later you will have to give up that obsolete machine.. And what will you do then ?

Adobe realizes they did something wrong for photgraphers and is considering a CC bundle of LR&PS for photographers. I bet that then we will be forced to enter into this fee system or look elsewhere and this will come earlier than we thought.

I think that Adobe has underestimated two things : 1) we need PS less and less nowadays : raw converters are going a long way and cameras are getting better and better, so less tweaks are needed.2) unlike graphists and designers creating more complex composites, we have alternatives.

From what Adobe answered, they will try to turn their blunder into an advantage, forcing us all into the fee system earlier than first announced.

How dare you say that LR has great value when it comes down to ACR only. LR has not even 5% of the power that Photoshop has.

Where are my layers, where is my masks and how do I use channels RGB AND CMYK in Lightroom?

How do I go about calculations and selections in Lightroom?

I can go on and on. Lightroom has NOTHING to offer and hasn't that great value that you want us to believe!

Its a tempered product with flaws in its RAW rendering engine. Telling us that nothing has changed while the algorithm decides for you what should be the best highlight and shadow protections..... Really LR sucks pretty big and there are way better RAW converters around!

Companies we love make us feel like they exist to serve and empower us. Companies we hate make us feel like their goal is to control us and extract more from us than their products/services are worth. Adobe transitioned from the former to the latter long ago. With this latest move, they've reached a new low.

Perhaps trust/distrust would have been better words to use than love/hate. Customer trust and confidence influence purchase decisions. Whatever remnant of confidence I had left in Adobe is now completely gone.

As a semi-pro user of Photoshop, there are many features of PS that are very difficult to implement efficiently in other apps, especially where specialised filters, plug-ins and actions combine. I routinely look around for alternatives but I'm never convinced.

When upgrade cycles of HW, OS and Apps were slower, the infrequent App upgrade was fine. Now that the pace has picked up significantly, the idea of keeping old Apps running is getting to be unrealistic. The iOS App model shows what is going on; Frequent updates to everything is the norm, so I see where Adobe are going with this.

I am also a pro CAD developer and while the costs make my eyes water, in this case a sub is cheaper than the traditional upgrade.

However, Adobe are increasing the costs for the subscription model, which is crazy.

I have no use for the online component they offer, so a discount for passing on those would be nice. While we're at it, I'd give up big chunks of PS I rarely use for a reduced sub.

Lets hope Adobe splits off the Raw conversion program into a separate selling program to use with previous versions of Photoshop to handle new cameras. This new Adobe vision is really not right and I hope they get enough bad feedback and loose enough customers to also offer a non cloud version in the future. I have been using PS as a hobby since version 5.5. I have a lot of money and time into the programs not only with PS but with 3rd party programs. I feel betrayed by Adobe and no longer feel I can trust them with further investment even if they come to their senses and stop this madness.

In their interview, Adobe said that the CC version of Lightroom will have features that will not be in the permanent licence. You can bet that, over the years, this will accelerate. Read this interview carefully.

Question: would you bet the life of your wife and kids that Adobe will not eventually shift Lightroom exclusively into CC? No.

Remember, Lightroom has a proprietary format for storing files, so if you commit a few years to LR, and then Adobe does a CC on Lightroom, you are stuffed because you need the software to open the LR edits.

Adobe is doing to LR what they did with Photoshop. Make it mainstream and lock you in, and then once they have you by the $@{{s, they switch to CC to force you into a lifetime monthly payment.

Adobe might not be doing it now, but you can stake your retirement fund on it that Adobe have discussed it and considered it.

But such a move may have a backslash and spell out the end of the separate perpetual license for LR. Really, this makes me very insecure concerning what I should do now : stay with LR or switch back to Iview Media and C1.

It is a pain : I transitioned from Ivew Media to LR when it was sold to Microsoft and rebranded as Expression. But now it has been bought by Phase One and works well with Capture One, so I may be back there.

So you have had one warning of using a small company before but you are thinking of going back to a small company. Do you honestly think Phase One will be around in say 10 or 20 years time? Do you not think they could be bought up like iView was by a competitor and closed done or changed dramatically. Or for the company even to go under?

Bottom line is when you finish working on a photo you export a jpeg or a tiff and keep a backup copy of that as well. Since Lightroom came out as a beta I have done that. It should be part of your back up plan.

To StuPhase One is a serious and well established company, they produced Capture One Pro (C1) to work with their digital backs, their software is well regarded particularly by pro photographers, specially for fashion and product photography. They are reputed to have very good skintones. They have also rescued Media Pro from Microsoft because that was the catalogue working with C1. They made a lot of happy customers when they rescued it.

Further, unlike Adobe, they have very fair prices internationally : they charge every customer the same, wherever they live, while Adobe taxes me 21% more than US customers, including the new CC fees. And unlike DXO, Phase One doesn't abusively perceive a 20% VAT for customers who live in Europe, but aren't part of the EU and thus don't ought it.

Yes they are smaller than Adobe and for that reason they are taking more care of their customers. They are smaller but are around since a long time. So what ? Do you think I'm better off with a company that makes me vulnerable, which could prevent me from accessing my work files if I don't pay the unfair price they are asking for a life long ? Do you really think that I'm better with a big company having a monopolistic dictatorial behaviour and ripping its international customers ?

By the way, do you even know who Phase One is ? Take a look here : they are active in this domain since 1993 and located in Copenhague Denmark; they have offices in : New York, London, Cologne, Tokyo, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Sydney and Tel Aviv..

I've been using PS since 2.0. I'm invested in two personal Master Collection licenses, and a dozen more at work. I use the PS-PP-AE triad every single day. I've always been *happy* to pay Adobe for software that enables me to do my thing. There have been some annoyances, frustrations, but the tools themselves are excellent and because of that, I've always felt that the arrangement was mutually beneficial. Companies are not people, but we do have relationships with them. I felt like I had a good one with Adobe.

That's one of the biggest changes for me with CC, on top of all the other problems - I don't feel like Adobe's worthy of my trust the way it used to be.

If you do the math, the current upgrade costs are about $10/mo ($180 upgrade fee divided by 18 mos). Now the "special educational pricing" is $20 and more if you don't qualify which is literally 2x+. I called Adobe and their response was that I get access to the full creative suite of programs . Frankly this is NOT a benefit to me. Charge me $10/mo and limit my access to PS only. I don't want to pay twice for software I will never use, but offer it as a package. Here's my suggestion - $10 for one program, $15 for two and $20 for the full suite. Let the consumer make the choice for what works best for their situation. I am extremely disappointed at this and most likely will not participate. Vote with your wallets people and people will listen. Sorry for the rant but this is a sad day indeed.

Stuart what do you actually do, ie job? Will you get the education discount for ever anyway? Or will you at some point set your own company up doing photography? If so because CC is leased you can then right the full cost off against your tax. That then works out cheaper than the boxed version as with standard software you can only right some of it off. It's like how tax works with lease cars.

I'm not actually in the educational field but the Adobe rep on hearing my complaint simply offered me the lower pricing. Someone else suggested switching to Elements. The other alternative is of course to simply stick with CS6 and not worry about upgrading and wait for Adobe to amend this new policy. The backlash seems steep at the moment but we won't know anything until August when people start voting with their wallets. If the photographic community really does follow through, then Adobe will have no choice but to adjust.

You just named two engineers. I seriously doubt they have ANYTHING to do with corporate pricing policy there. It is probably appropriate to still have the highest level of respect for their technical achievements. Who knows, they might even disagree with the new policies. Until we know, I think blaming them is probably jumping to conclusions.

Now, I think it's fair to use any expletives you want for their executive team...

You want to hang your business on running the 2.10 unstable release of GIMP, all for the pleasure of being able to use a 16-bit workflow (that has been available in Photoshop since what, 2004?), feel free.

"Unstable, lol." That's what Beta releases are like. Just like the Beta releases I ran of CS6, and the Lightroom Beta release I am testing right now. Come to that, some FINAL releases of Lightroom have been more than a little screwed up in the performance department.

And, for most people, alternatives only need feature parity when there is cost parity. Plenty of pros are making a very good living with CS3. For those who upgraded every OTHER upgrade, Adobe has increased costs fourfold and given nothing in return. Except a lifetime of rent paying.

People and companies weigh pros and cons, and cost is one. When you can BUY an alternative with a few less bells and whistles for the cost of three months rent of Photoshop, or get it open source, good luck Adobe.

The talented newcomer beating your designs with GIMP is STILL going to be taking your customers.

Someone here is also missing the point that a great many pro users and companies NEVER connect mission critical workstations to the internet. And I include major animation companies and TV producers in that.

Here's a survey. Is the reason so many users skip every other version of Photoshop (a) because it's too expensive for anyone who's not a full-time professional, or (b) because there isn't a heck of a lot of difference between versions? I have CS5 at home and CS6 at work and except that they've moved the tools where I can't find them, I don't see much difference with the newer one. Content-aware fill was useful; shaky camera filter sounds like something I can live without.

I would say a bit of both. Most photographers do it as a hobby and it makes it hard to spend money over and over for features that only professionals need. But even professionals don't upgrade all the time because the core functionality is there and has been for years. Over the past 12 years I think I only considered 3 versions worth upgrading and I use Photoshop professionally.

Your two options are pretty well entangled with each other. If there were more differences between versions, there would be more value to the upgrade and it'd be worth doing more often. Conversely, if the upgrade were cheaper, the smaller differences between versions would be less of a concern. So it's the price vs. the value.

There are so many good and applicable comments that I agree with. One of my biggest problems, however, is the fact that I need to download the software and updates. Sadly, I have satellite internet service, the only option available to me where I live, and both my speed and data transfer limits are a great concern for me. I can't afford it from data transfer perspective. I, too, will be using my PS CS6 as long as I can and looking for alternatives in the coming months.

I've just been to a "Comsol"-seminar and learned how they make use of a subscription-system there. And this would be the only system i'd ever use:You pay for a lifetime-licence but get only 12m of full support. After that you may pay 20% of the price again for another 12m of full support. If you don't, your programm will still work like before but if you find any more bugs you may keep them for your own. Considering that the software has major updates onces every 6m this sounds like a fair deal to me. But seriously: 20€/m is way to much for me.

Most CAD will work that way... It's still a ripoff for a single reason. The new version files are always proprietary and won't open with any of the old versions. While this is fine and dandy and one could argue there's new functionality and so on, somehow they leave out the "save as older" options out. In a supply chain, when one upgrades everyone down that chain has to as well...

I've put about $1200 into PS at this point. I think that's more than enough. I would have accepted paying the upgrade price in order to upgrade every other edition, but no more. Adobe gets no more money from me. I am a hobbiest, and this expense is no longer acceptable.

We're getting a Hobson's choice: all or nothing, in other words, no choice at all. It's just like mobile phone operators who keep their compulsory multi-year plans deliberately incomprehensible to obscure comparisons and make sure that every subscriber pays the full price for a service never used to the full.

The one difference is that there is some competition, so you can "easily" change mobile service providers (although that required laws to prevent cartel / anti-trust practice). This also forces operators to innovate to retain clients. There is no viable alternative to Adobe at present. It doesn't need to innovate. Everyone loses.

If Adobe doesn't feel any pressure to innovate, it's because none of their competition is within 5 years of catching up. It is absolutely all or nothing, because you can't build a professional practice around anyone else's software.

I think some of Adobe's competitors are much closer to catching up than that. We should impress them with the market opportunity. Take Nuke for example, with its advanced dataflow architecture and media engine. It could easily be developed into a still photo processor, and all of the elements of photoshop layers could be added in as a layer of abstraction above that -- all without the compromises of photoshop.

Of course I agree with your overall statement, but I would argue that the entire history of software business and design is predicated on building up based on others' ideas: Microsoft and IBM, Microsoft and Apple, Adobe and [insert favourite victim here]. The list is long and will grow longer...

You're both right, there is opportunity, but the present alternatives are so bad that it's hard to see a change soon. Maybe if we catch a press release about how Nuke bought somebody's raw processor ;)

"If Adobe doesn't feel any pressure to innovate, it's because none of their competition is within 5 years of catching up." Nope. It['s because this is a mature software product, and as with all such, incremental changes that can be made now are small. Basically if you missed the last three updates you missed very little. Same goes with Office suites as well. Don't expect major upgrades now. Expect to pay more to get less.

Adobe themselves are admitting that one thing they are pi$$ed off about is people still running old versions, and the limited take-up of the latest and greatest. So clearly, for the majority of their market, including the ones answering the poll here, you are wrong.

Which cost money to develop Luke Kaven and time for what at the moment looks a small market with probably less than 10k people complaining online about CC (a lot of which don't regular update their software) but 5.5 million already signed up to CC.

You are right about Adobe's feeling no pressure to innovate because Photoshop CS6 is already far beyond the competition.

You are wrong that " It is absolutely all or nothing"; I have a perpetual license Photoshop CS6 and can easily keep it running for 5 years, 10, years, 15 years, or however long it takes for the competition to catch up to the newly opened market opportunity. My guess is 3 to 5 years.

You are arguably right about the second half of your last point, but that doesn't mean all or nothing; it means that I'll either have to keep running CS6 on a legacy computer and OS (no big deal) or that I'll have to sign up to CC lock-in with ever increasing rents. I've got a KVM (keyboard, video, mouse/trackball) switch alternative to your cloud. No further Adobe sales to me. Good bye, its been a lovely 15 years, but your cloud isn't the best answer to my needs.

I have no concerns at all. Adobes step makes a lot of sense to me. It seems people think, Adobe wants to erase all the pictures worked on with Photoshop, if you stop paying.Instead of paying a big chunk of money buying the program I pay a monthly fee that don't weigh me down. On the other hand Adobe gets some money all the time, what gives them the cash they need to keep things going. The only one who suffers is the bank, because Adobe won't need to keep a big deposit to pay their staff in times between releases.

You would still have your original RAW images but they do in essence erase your work product because you cannot access the hundreds or perhaps thousands of hours of work in the saved non destructive layers and adjustments. So you lose all your work unless you sign up forever, to whatever price increase Adobe unilaterally decides to impose. There is no exit strategy once you are in. I spend as much or more time editing as taking pictures, so with many thousands of pictures that is an enormous work product that might be hard to protect.

Monopoly pricing power combined with proprietary formats. That is the absolute worst combination for any software.

Whether you save them as TIFF has nothing to do with the argument. You lose your work and the ability to come back to an image and tweak as you learn new skills, think about it in a different way etc. You must start over in another package. It is the work that you are losing. Sure you can keep the final image but I find that I go back quite a lot to older images as I grow and learn.

How do you lose your work if you save it as tiffs, just open the tiffs with different software (like Paintshop) and continue working on them?

Do you mean that you can't undo things in Photoshop? That's different.

Now I suspect one can find other software to open PSD files, layers could possibly be preserved and opened in this other software, here's big motivation for Corel. This software may already exist, but GIMP decided to lock up when I launched it, so couldn't try it with a PSD file.

Adobe has been quite neurotic about marketing and copyright issues over the years and "pioneered" related practices. This is no surprise but I hope it goes bad. They sound quite adamant about this decision but it's a free market so they'd better watch out for the competition...

Adobe alternatives will start to look more attractive and other software vendors will recognize this opening in the market and put more effort in competing with Adobe products. In the end Adobe has managed to shoot themselves in the foot and others will benefit. It's the American way! ;-)

I already find Adobe's monopolistic and innovation-killing ways of doing business reprehensible. I buy software to do, and continue to do, a job for me. I want to be free to move on and choose another application and vendor when appropriate.

The degree to which corporate behemoths like Adobe and Apple have been able dominate the applications market stifles competition and new ideas and already ties the computer user into endless upgrade treadmills.

Having to continually pay "rent" to feed such bloated megacorporations will only make things worse.

The only good news is that Kelby, Kloskowski, Rodney and other zealous Adobe servants will lose their customers. Because it is the non-pros who buy their books and video training, and there will be very few of them to subscribe to this alienating Creative Cloud.

I WISH I could charge my customers like this. "If you want to keep looking at your photos, pay me $20 a month for life". Stop paying and you can't see them. Sweet. The reality is of course, I can't think of anyone who would stand for that. Odd isn't it?

Umm, yes I know. It's how I (we) make money. However, once you have a print, you have it. You can frame it, you can put in into an album, you can make a mouse pad out of it or whatever your heart desires. But you do not hang it on your wall and next month pay me another $20 or I come to your house and take it back. Big difference.

Yes, it is. Once you own it, you own it. I currently "own" (license) CS6. You can use it over and over. Once you rent it, you never own it. One day the owner will call you and ask for it back, unless you pay and pay. We're talking about two different things here and I'm sorry but your analogy to wedding photography doesn't make sense. I've yet to call up a couple from years ago and ask for a print back. Stop paying adobe and they will in effect, ask for their program back. They may have to pay me for another print, but once they have it, it's theirs to own, not rent. Once I start with CC, I rent it and "own" nothing. Or to probably put it better, I lose the use of it once I stop paying. The couple is still enjoying their photo over their mantle. Done.

Shooting a wedding isn't the job of a documentary photographer, it's the job of an artist. It is a big day, there is a lot of pressure on the photographer, it requires a lot of equipment and preparation, and doing all the post processing is very time consuming. Most wedding photographers barely scrape by. If they charged a flat rate for all the RAW files nobody on Earth would pay it. Selling prints is the only chance to make any kind of profit. And when an artist creates a piece, he has no desire to just give it to someone for nothing. I've done a few professional gigs, not many, but when I was done I was shocked out how much time it took, energy it drained, and how little respect for my effort was shown. And then there have been times that people have been so appreciative that I almost felt bad for simply asking "well, if you print it then I'd just like you to mention who the photographer was and if you sell it please give me a percentage" and that with only a handshake.

Adobe won't call you to take back your processed images (in TIFF, JPEG, etc) either. They want to rent the tool to you and allow you to keep the output. Just like a wedding photographer. Even though your client pays you to do the work, you want to retain the rights to the actual product used to produce the output.

It's only after a couple lets some goofy uncle shoot their wedding or a coworker that wants to practice that they realize a wedding is one time when you want someone who is very good at what they do in charge. Experience, equipment, time all costs money, but since most people think it was just a 4 hour gig they should only get a couple of hundred for it. If you want to be a jerk about it, buy a large print, scan it, and make your own prints. Maybe after five years when the photographer is cleaning out archives they should go ahead and send a disc of the files and delete them from the hard drive. Until then, they own the rights to their works of art and their payment for the event was done with all terms agreed upon up front.

River, they retain the rights because the only way they'll ever get out of the poor house is if they're good enough to get people to buy prints, otherwise they couldn't charge ten grand for a job and have anybody pay it. It's them, probably an assistant on site, an office, a computer, very expensive software, hours and hours of processing, printing, all the preparation, dealing with difficult people, having some bozo in the back taking shots they have carefully set up (thereby stealing some of their print income), and a few bodies, high dollar lenses, wear and tear on the equipment, lighting and flashes, rain damage, insurance....it is a big, expensive business to run. And when serious processing is done photographers save their file as a PSD that retains all of their layers so that modifications can be made later. If their PS expires, their PSD files go bye bye.

howard you sound just like the CEO of Adobe; the same arrogance and concern for your self interest. Believe me, most of your customers only sign that agreement because they have no other choice - just like Adobe is doing to everyone. :-)

You sound like you have no idea what people do to earn their money. I did a wedding just in exchange for the software I'd need to process the RAW files from my new camera ($250 for the PS upgrade) and I did at least two grand worth of work for it. Since I was unpracticed I didn't charge much and because they were friends, but I researched and prepared and practiced all I could and shot every wedding related event. I've done commercial shoots for friends just in trade. I know enough to know what it takes to do things that other, like you, think is simple and cheap. Adobe, however, is dramatically altering their existing scheme, incentivizing themselves to not have to try all that hard to innovate, and jacking the price way, way up. Did your wedding photographer say on the wedding day "oh, I know I said it would be three grand but I'm gonna have to have six grand....good luck booking somebody else."? You're clueless.

I grasp it well, but here's my deal. If I do a product shoot for my glass making friends at the studio, I'll gladly trade studio time for it and let them have the files. However, if they sell a piece to a client for five grand and he wants the images from the night his art was produced, the rights still belong to me and I will decide who else can have them. I give the files not the rights. I give them to my friends out of kindness and in exchange for something, but that doesn't mean their millionaire client has the right to get them for free. I maintain the rights to every single image I take because it is my art and may be used by those to whom I give permission. Up until now Adobe granted me permission to use their software for a fee. Now they want me to rent it and the day I stop paying I lose it. You don't grasp.

Yes, if a photographer knows he's going to make enough money to have a decent standard of living, pay all the bills, and maybe expand his business then that is certainly between the photographer and client. If he knows that each job will pay a certain amount then maybe he'll have a clue what his salary for the year will be and, should that be sufficient, he may be thrilled to hand over all the files. If people want to pay him $20 an hour for the event and nothing else, then he may want another source of future income from that work to cover the actual time and actual costs he incurs plus a little to pay for his expertise, skill, reliability, etc.

Poss, are you trying to say not to judge a man until you've walked a mile in his shoes? :) River, I've been the jerk at the wedding taking pictures behind the real photographer. His were much better. I purchased prints that I still own and prize. His experience and expertise, not just time and equipment, made my best friend's wedding something that can be remembered beautifully for all time. Try to get the same quality from Uncle Joe.

"Sucks to be you" Good for you who are young and still producing for the competitive market but not so great for those of us who are still producing photo art for our own and others enjoyment. Why not a choice of CC or CS from Adobe? Then being me or you need not "suck."

I don't see the big deal here. Sound to me like your reaction is more 'knee-jerk' than anything else. You're panicking before you even understand how the new changes will affect you. Just chill, and be patient. I'm sure your little projects will not be affected.

It was way cheaper to upgrade every 1.5 to 4 years than to pay monthly extortion payments. Upgrades were $199 which covered a 1.5 to 4 year period. Monthly over same period will be $360 to $960. If you call that saving money then you don't know much about math.

I'm happy it saves *you* money. I hope you did the math and checked it against all your upgrades and needs fulfilled by each one of them. In my specific case, the math comes out heavily in Adobe's favour, not mine. I suspect many of the people here complaining are in the same boat, but there are others like you, so Adobe must be pleased to have one happy customer.

Ultimately, providing a service is about giving what most people want. I don't think DP forum contributors are a completely accurate representative sample of all Adobe users, but even so, they probably represent the majority. It doesn't make us "dinosaurs" (whatever our nationality!). It just makes us discontented.

Before you became a professional, you use illegal software. This has been the entrance for many DOS, Windows, Adobe products, etc. users. Younger people don't have the money. The introduction to a product is like drugs. The first shoot is free. If the first shoot isn't available. The youngsters will seek other substitutes.That's my guess. My use and knowledge about several applications has started will some "free" access. If you really what this stuff in a professional setting, you buy it!

A very nice article by Corel . I think they are the best alternative to Adobe and have really strong products. The problem is that they have no Mac Version which is a pity. I would encourage you to leave a message on their page requesting an OsX version. They cannot do that in 2 days, but I guess my CS6 version can hold until Corel is ready, if they make the commitment. Now would be a good time for Corel CEO to put on the big pants and challenge Adobe with an annoucement.

Possibly... but I love how they made Adobe Flash dissapear in 2 months :) and I will love it more if Tim Cook decides tomorrow to put some hard resources into Apperture and make Lightroom dissapear too.

BTW, your shift is over, time for the other Adobe shill to start posting on this board defending your pos company.

There is a PREMIUM upgrade to the CorelDRAW Graphics Suite X6 that costs $99.00/year. This gives you the equivalent of Adobe's cloud with all upgrades issued during that period. The are offering a hybrid deal where you buy a perpetual license to their suite PLUS their cloud service for upgrades.

"Possibly... but I love how they made Adobe Flash dissapear in 2 months" Yeah of course. That's why my Mac computer isn't more crippled than my PC because of all the Flash websites and videos it won't play.

Even Adobe stopped major development of the MOBILE version of Flash, because, essentially, Steve Jobs was right. You can still get mobile Flash on Android devices, but it's an old version; everyone expects that it will eventually be superseded by HTML5.

With regards to DESKTOP Flash, that runs on Macs, although a lot of people use browser plug-ins like Click2Flash that keep it from running by default.

Who needs Adobe? I've got my Photoshop. If this ever gets too outdated there will be another program. What's more, I'm not going to a cloud for anything and I'm not storing anything on a cloud -- it leaves us (photographers especially) too vulnerable.

I want some protections, some rights, some privacy, some respect!

These companies better start asking what we consumers want. They think we're slaves but they're going to find out we don't need them after all. Then they'll be singing a different tune.

By the way, Adobe ain't what it used to be! Did you see that fourth rate artwork they sent out with that last CS promotion? The one with the "hair" artwork? It was putrid!

Problem is that your current Photoshop will be good for some time with the equipment you currently own. If you purchase a new camera three or four years from now, chances are that your current ACR won't be able to open the RAW files. I doubt Adobe will continue support for CS6 once they force everyone to go to their new cloud scam (CS) version.

It's a shame Adobe is resorting to this. I have been using Photoshop in one version or another for over 10 years. They have lost me as a client thanks to their new marketing strategy. I will be searching for an alternate imaging program this week. Bye Adobe.

Most of the students I know pirate Adobe products. They don't like doing it but feel they have little choice. I have always thought Adobe could have done much more to prevent this, had they wanted to. Well, now they are going to do it and my guess is that it will be great news for Adobe competitors, both commercial, like Corel, and non-commercial, like Gimp and Inkscape. So from this standpoint, I welcome Adobe's decision to discontinue the anti-competitive and anti-social policy of encouraging piracy. I look forward to the open source competitors giving Adobe a run, as Android is doing to IoS. I also hope Adobe enter a period of long-term decline. They have never been a lovable company. I hope they stop growing and die slowly and quietly, like Microsoft.

You are probably working for Adobe but anyway, here is a very good response for that "article" about "myths":

1. If you recently paid to upgrade to CS6, especially if you're a "Master Collection" customer, you're getting reamed.2. You're going to be pestered once a month to make sure you've paid your "Adobe bill".3. You've lost control of when/what you purchase. I put off upgrading to CS6 for a year because the additional features weren't compelling enough for me to sink the money into. You won't have that option in the future.4. Adobe's sold out their loyal long-term customers in order to get a recurring monthly revenue stream.5. No matter which Adobe product you use, unless you were buying it BRAND NEW every single year, you will end up spending more money to get basically the same stuff via Creative Cloud. My CS6 Master Collection upgrade cost me $525. Once my "discount year" is up, I'll be paying a minimum of $600. Not when I feel like it. Every single year.

If CarlosNunezUSA someone was using it for professional use for their own business, as the software is leased they can claim the WHOLE amount against tax. That is something you can't do on bought software. It therefore actually works out cheaper.

No, Stu hasn't done the tax math - or if he has, he isn't being straight with us. I own and run three small businesses, and I have been doing my tax returns with Turbo Tax Home and Business since 1990 - and have never had any problems with the IRS with any of these returns. If you use Photoshop only for business, your upgrade cost of $199 is low enough to be acceptable to the IRS for expensing - though you can't do that with a new CS6 full Suite purchase. Up through 2012 a small business could expense that much software under Section 179 by filing a form 4562, but "our" government in Washington eliminated that for 2013 and beyond. Thanks, Congresscrooks.

1. Adobe's pricing is too high -- cost is about double, more if you skip versions2. Having to repeatedly pay to retain access -- 3. The need to occasionally connect to the Internet/Cloud 4. Uncertainty over future of Adobe or pricing -- I am certain that it will only increase

One thing to note, is that the $49.99 per month plan, gives you access to all the Adobe products in the Creative Cloud Suite. While that may not appeal to people who just use Photoshop, that is quite a bit of software you get for $600 per year. It works out to a pretty good deal if you like or need to always have the latest version of the software.

Yes, I think everyone agrees that there do exist situations where the subscription deal is a very good one. But generally, its not a good deal for photographers. And, this is a photographer's site. It is also not a good deal for hobby people. And ... I assume DPReview is mainly read by hobby people, or at least to a high degree. So, I think its hard to find any acceptance here.

Adobe's single app price is $19.99 per month. I currently use Photoshop CS6 which retails for $699. I think the subscription price is reasonable (just barely). I also use Lightroom 3 but I much prefer Photoshop for editing. If the user interface of Lightroom's editor was significantly improved I probably wouldn't buy Photoshop. As far as high end photo editing software is concerned, I don't think Photoshop has any serious competition.

If you had CS4 or CS5 you could have updated to CS6 for $199. That is the boat most of us are own, the upgrade boat. So $199 for 1.5 to 4 years of use verses $239 every single year for 1.5 to 4 years (which equals $359 to $959). That equals a really bad deal by a greedy, bloatware company!

What it makes one sit down and consider is, if you are typically one who upgrades every time the next camera model is introduced (not cheap either), do you continue doing that and find yourself new software, or do you skip a new body or two (or maybe that new lens) and keep yourself up-to-date with Photoshop.

Most companies don't price their products on the basis of fairness but rather on what will maximize profits. Unfortunately, that is the reality. Market forces and the shareholders are basically calling the shots. And the shareholders probably have an advantage.

You see, those higher prices are somehow all for your own good and have something or other to do with Adobe's Creative Cloud... If I hadn't seen it, I would have thought that it was a parody like the Youtube Hitler CC piece. I don't trust trust this guy.

Long time Professional print and motion designer/animator. PS user since 1.0 but more After Effects these days. I keep updated (CS6) primarily because I need to collaborate with others in the pipeline, but also because I generally like Adobe's offerings and their rich plugin ecosystem. Money is not the main criteria for me, in fact, in my situation the Cloud would be cheaper.

Deal breaker for me is that under this system I could lose access to my own intellectual property. I know I don't own, but rather lease, my software. But what I create with that software, even if it is saved in one of Adobe's propriety file formats, is mine. Not Adobe's.

That they would even raise the specter of such a thing (locking me out of my own files for any reason) tells me all I need to know. Moving to Adobe alternatives will be a major hassle. And ironically, unless they hadn't put my livelihood in jeopardy, I would probably never do it.

For most of us semi-pro or hobby enthusiast photographers and even some full pro photographers any one of the 64 bit versions of Photoshop starting at CS4 and later (was CS3 64bit?) is really all we will need for the next many number of years, so most are covered who have this.

Unless... you also use the ACR Raw features or need the latest and greatest because you work in advertising and marketing and commercial photography and are sharing layered files to others.How many of us actually need better than CS6 Photoshop anyway and need more upgrading (who are enthusiasts) which is a mature product already. Use other software for Raw conversion and there are lots out there and your existing PS should be fine for many years!

I don't usually use ACR anyway, with a few exceptions (I use D700 however the occasional Canon FF file I get works well in ACR). I prefer DXO Optics Pro 8 for Raw. Great program. Lightroom and others like Aperature are good alternates. So PS is fine the way it is for most of my needs. I will use other software for the rest. Do not care for Bridge and use ACDsee Pro 6 for file management. Also good.

@TomTHANKS A LOT for the VM ....never thought about that option! I can run CS6 for 10 years...by then, there will be other stuff. I am not worried about ACR, although nice, i could always use DPP to convert to TIFF and take it to CS6 ....if needed. Great idea! In the mean time ADBE has lost all the 199 cycles from me + the $80 LR cycles as well. Obviously i am not investing in a product that will eventually join the CLoudy Crap

That isn't the only competitor to Lightroom or Photoshop RAW conversion; both DXO and Phase 1 make very fine products, and all are available as permanent license boxed products.

I'll keep using my permanent license Photoshop CS6 until there is something better available in a permanent license version - which *sob* may take a few years. I'll either use a Virtual Machine to run an old compatible OS X version on my Mac, or I'll simply keep an old machine with an old OS available. My PowerMac G-5 is ready to go with Photoshop CS and OS X 10.4.8 with the push of two buttons. I have my current computer and three legacy machines with legacy OSes hooked up to a KVM (keyboard, video monitor, mouse) switch.

A. As an amateur photogrpher who buys a new version of CS extended every 4 years, I'm out. $600/year is just too rich for my blood. I may look into getting CS6 (if it's even available without a CC subscription), and then moving on to something else in a few years.

B. I think the industry leader has just opened the door for a lot of $200-300 photo editing software competitiors. Sure, maybe they won't be as good, but at $600/year I can't afford the best anymore. I don't need content-aware editing or 3-D modeling. I've grown up with Photoshop since 3.0 LE, but I won't be subscribing at $49.95/month.

To be fair, if all you want is Photoshop, it's not $49.95, it's $19.95, which is enough itself at $240 per year when someone like myself is used to $195 every 18 months, but $600 per year is not right unless one wants Adobe's entire suite, not just Photoshop.

You can still get the boxed or download full version of CS6 at retailers or on Adobe site for 699. Only CS5 and 5.5 users can get CS6 Photoshop at lower than half price on Adobe site. Click on Buy button to see the upgrade from CS5 option.

I've had the trial LR 4 on my Macbook Pro for three weeks when all this furor erupted. I weighed the chances that LR would end up in the cloud in a year or two and decided to buy the competition - silly name but a great product (PhotoNinja). Sorry, Adobe, but there are too many bozos on your bus!

I never paid a cent to Scott Kelby, I find his books overrated, but...Adobe is what he sells, so he is probably selling his soul to keep his business afloat. There are many other businesses that will hold their nose and jump in because there is no real alternative at the moment, and that is the reason why Adobe is doing it, they know they can hold many people hostage and make a ton of money, and if it backfires, they will be back selling copies and saying "Sorry". There is no loyalty in the business world.

Latest in-depth reviews

The Canon G5 X Mark II earns a Silver Award with its very good image quality, flexibility and the overall engaging experience of using the camera. However, if you need the very best in autofocus and video, other options may suit you better. Find out all the details in our full G5 X II review.

360 photos and video can be very useful for certain applications (as well as having fun). The Vuze+ is an affordable 360 camera that supports both 2D and 3D (stereo vision) capture, and might be the best option for someone wanting to experiment with the 360 format.

The Mikme Pocket is a portable wireless mic with particular appeal to smartphone users looking to up their game and improve the quality of recorded audio without the cost or complexity or traditional equipment.

The 90D is essentially the DSLR version of the EOS M6 Mark II mirrorless camera that was introduced alongside it. Like the M6 II, it features a 32MP sensor, Dual Pixel AF, fast burst shooting and 4K/30p video capture. It will be available mid-September.

Latest buying guides

If you want a compact camera that produces great quality photos without the hassle of changing lenses, there are plenty of choices available for every budget. Read on to find out which portable enthusiast compacts are our favorites.

Whether you're hitting the beach in the Northern Hemisphere or the ski slopes in the Southern, a rugged compact camera makes a great companion. In this buying guide we've taken a look at nine current models and chosen our favorites.

What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.

If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. In our latest buying guide we've selected some cameras that while they're a bit older, still offer a lot of bang for the buck.

Whether you're new to the Micro Four Thirds system or a seasoned veteran, there are plenty of lenses available for you. We've used pretty much all of them, and in this guide we're giving your our recommendations for the best MFT lenses for various situations.

Blackmagic has announced an update to Blackmagic RAW that adds support, via plugins, to Adobe Premiere Pro and Avid Media Composer. Blackmagic also announced a pair of Video Assist 12G monitor-recorders with brighter HDR displays, USB-C recording and more.

Sony has announced the impending arrival of its next-generation video camera system, the FX9. The full-frame E-mount system is set to be released later this year with a 16-35mm E-mount lens to follow in spring 2020.

The Canon G5 X Mark II earns a Silver Award with its very good image quality, flexibility and the overall engaging experience of using the camera. However, if you need the very best in autofocus and video, other options may suit you better. Find out all the details in our full G5 X II review.

The Fujifilm X-A7 is the newest addition to the company's X-series lineup. Despite its relatively low price of $700 (with lens), Fujifilm didn't skimp on features. Click through to find out what you need to know about the X-A7.

The entry-level Fujifilm X-A7 improves upon many of its predecessor's weak points, including a zippier processor, an upgraded user experience and 4K/30p video capture. It goes on sale October 24th for $700 with a 15-45mm F3.5-5.6 kit lens.

Robert Frank's unconventional approach to photography and filmmaking defied generational constraints and inspired some of the most influential artists of the 20th century. He passed away today at age 94.

All three devices offer a standard 12MP camera plus, for the first time on an iPhone, an ultra-wide 13mm camera module. The 11 Pro and 11 Pro Max also retain the telephoto camera of previous generations.

Phase One's new XT camera system incorporates the company's IQ4 series of digital backs with up to 151MP of resolution and marries them to a line of Rodenstock lenses using the new XT camera body. The result is an impressively small package for one of the largest image sensors currently on the market - take a closer look here.

Phase One has announced its new XT camera system, which includes an IQ4 digital back, body (made up of a shutter release button and two dials) and a trio of Rodenstock lenses. The company is marketing the XT as a 'travel-friendly' product for landscape photographers.